Back

Association between sensitivity to the five basic tastes and frailty and low muscle mass and/or strength

Kouzuki, M.

2025-12-04 geriatric medicine
10.64898/2025.12.02.25341508 medRxiv
Show abstract

AimTaste decline may contribute to malnutrition, frailty, and reduced muscle health in older adults, but evidence is limited and inconsistent. This study aimed to examine the association between frailty and low muscle mass and/or strength and taste-related information obtained through assessing sensitivity to the five basic tastes and using questionnaire surveys. MethodsSixty-eight community-dwelling older individuals without diagnosed taste disorders were enrolled. Assessments included background factors, sensitivity to the five basic tastes using taste-impregnated filter papers, body measurements, physical function, and a questionnaire (subjective taste, palatability, and dietary balance). Because taste sensitivity evaluation was newly devised, two scoring methods were used: (1) one point per correct answer and (2) one point for correctly identifying either low or high concentration strip for each taste. ResultsWhen using scoring method 2, it was found that a higher umami sensitivity score was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of pre-frailty or frailty (adjusted odds ratio = 0.26, p = 0.040). However, no correlation was found between muscle mass and/or muscle strength and the results of the taste sensitivity assessment. Participants reporting a decline in taste function had significantly lower umami sensitivity scores in scoring methods 1 and 2 (p=0.042, p=0.032, respectively). ConclusionsAlthough the results slightly varied depending on the scoring method used for the taste sensitivity assessment, higher umami sensitivity may be associated with a lower risk of developing pre-frailty or frailty. Umami sensitivity was also correlated with subjective taste assessment. Changes in taste perception may affect dietary intake and cause frailty; however, longitudinal studies are warranted to establish causal relationships.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.